2010 Progress Report FINAL2010 Progress Report 3 2010 – Reflections by the Facility team Overall, 2010 has been a year of both intensive operations and intensive thinking on the

2010 Progress Report – Draft

2010 Progress Report – Draft

2010 Progress Report

2

Table of contents

2010 – Reflections by the Facility team ................................................................................... 3 2010 - In brief.............................................................................................................................. 5 Facility governance ..................................................................................................................... 7 Facility Steering Committee (SC) ............................................................................................. 7 Facility Management............................................................................................................... 7

Outcome and impact monitoring and evaluation system (OIMES) ......................................... 9 Country support.........................................................................................................................11 Facility Partnerships...............................................................................................................11 Small Grants .........................................................................................................................12 Grant beneficiaries ................................................................................................................13 Activities Supported...............................................................................................................14 Thematic areas supported......................................................................................................15 Country Coaching ..................................................................................................................16 “Nfp’s for All” Training ...........................................................................................................16 Support to Smallholder Forest Producers Associations..............................................................17 The Facility and the Growing Forest Partnership (GFP) ............................................................18 Facility support to National Forest Financing Strategies............................................................20

Information services .................................................................................................................23 Facility Web Platform.............................................................................................................23 CPF Sourcebook on Funding for SFM ......................................................................................24 Promotion of the Facility ........................................................................................................24 Nfp Update ...........................................................................................................................25 Dissemination and Learning Processes....................................................................................25 Enhancing Knowledge and Capacities .....................................................................................27

Financial aspects .......................................................................................................................29 Overall situation at the end of 2010........................................................................................29 2010 Budget Implementation .................................................................................................29 Country Support....................................................................................................................30 Information Services..............................................................................................................33 Programme Delivery ..............................................................................................................33 Funding available for 2011 – mid 2012 ...................................................................................33 ANNEX I....................................................................................................................................35 Facility Steering Committee Members .....................................................................................35 ANNEX II..................................................................................................................................37 Facility Country Coaches in 2010 ............................................................................................37 ANNEX III ................................................................................................................................40 Facility Partner Countries and their 2010 Human Development index ranking............................40 ANNEX IV .................................................................................................................................41 Reporting against the Logical framework (2002-2010) .............................................................41


2


3

2010 – Reflections by the Facility team

Overall, 2010 has been a year of both intensive operations and intensive thinking on the future.

On the operational side the Facility has never received so much demand for support from the national level,

and below, as in 2010. The result is that the amount of support, in the form of small grants, has reached a

record high level. In total, 146 small grants have been transferred to 43 countries, of which 70 % went to civil

society organisations (NGO’s, CBO’s and Associations). This amount corresponds to an average of 4 Letters of

Agreement per week over the year and is a proof that the Facility administration has become really efficient

and that the FAO administrative procedures and tools are now functioning well also for small grants. It’s a

great joint FAO and Facility endeavour and learning that has taken place since the start in 2002.

In addition, in 2010 another 8 countries (Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Lesotho, Liberia, Namibia, South

Africa, and Vietnam) have applied and been accepted by Facility management for a 2nd Partnership

Agreement. In total 20 countries and ACICAFOC (regional partner in Central America) have now entered into

2nd partnerships.

The question bothering the minds of the Facility Team is about the impact of the nfp process, and the Facility

support to it, on the national level policy decisions on forest related issues. Unfortunately the OIMES do not

tell us much. In spite of all energy and resources invested in the development, capacity building and

implementation of the system it has not yet delivered results as expected. Too few countries have yet been

through the necessary time span to measure changes in their nfp and impacts of Facility support. On the one

hand this situation is causing frustration, but on the other hand the OIMES has turned out to be an eye-

opener for stakeholders and an excellent tool for capacity building on the understanding of nfps, analysis of

the present status and for identifying priorities.

In 2010 the Facility was evaluated by independent consultants contracted by EC. More indirectly the Facility

was also reviewed in the Mid Term Review of the GFP (Growing Forest Partnerships). The EC evaluation

questions the Facility’s objective of country ownership as international interests and related finance (REDD+

and FLEGT) are the real driving forces behind the changing situation today. A broader approach is suggested

for the Facility. Comparing the three evaluations of the Facility since the start (2005, 2007 and 2010) it

becomes clear that the role and relevance of the nfp, and the support provided to it by the Facility, has

gradually lost in importance. In many Facility partner countries the focus and hope for huge financial support

is logically now on REDD+ related initiatives handled by ministries of Finance, Planning and Environment and

the nfp framework and platforms are regarded as tools for the forest agencies in handling the technical

aspects (MRV) and stakeholder consultations related to that.

But, the fact is that the Facility has received more demands for support than ever before! The conclusion we

have drawn is that the forest stakeholders are eager to participate and welcome all the support they get. In

most countries they receive very little support apart from the Facility and so far, they have not yet obtained

any benefits from the REDD+ initiatives.

The GFP MTR review confirms this conclusion. It positively reviews the support provided by GFP and the

Facility to stakeholder organisations and to improved access to financing in Guatemala. Similar activities are

also ongoing in Liberia (not visited by the MTR Team) and elsewhere with Facility support. The National

Alliance of CBO’s and IP’s in Guatemala has quickly become a political factor in Guatemala and their voice is

invited to contribute to various national policy fora on financing and climate change. They have rapidly

become a strong enough voice that it cannot be bypassed by the politicians!

The intensive thinking, discussions and brainstorming during the second half of 2010 has been on the future

of the Facility! An early conclusion in this “horizon searching exercise” was that it is not possible to continue

for another phase with the same approach and general support to the implementation of nfps. On the one

hand, a more thematically focused approach is needed, but on the other it should be broader than just

forestry.

The final outcome of the reflection process is a proposal for a Facility focusing on broadening the nfp platform

both horizontally and vertically. Horizontally: support the organizing of smallholders, CBO’s, IP’s and other

marginalized farmer groups basing part of their livelihood on trees and forest land, and vertically: support/

incentivise the coordination of forestry related activities, projects and initiatives at higher than Forest

Department levels of Government.

The outcome of the Facility horizon searching process turned out to be very similar to the thinking and

outcome of a similar horizon search on the future of GFP when discussed in a strategic (brainstorming)


4

meeting involving the World Bank, IUCN, IIED and FAO (represented by the Facility) and joint SC members of

both the Facility and GFP. Subsequent meetings with climate initiatives, FCPF, FIP and UNREDD, have also

welcomed the ideas of a Facility with the above focus. Rather than creating a new Facility, it became natural

for the Facility Team to propose a transformation of the present NFP Facility into this new, tentatively named,

“Local Forest Voice” Facility.

In fact, the Facility team feels that most of the new focus is already being promoted and supported.

Moreover, the support to financing strategies, mechanisms and investments focus on the accessibility of the

small holders, and initiatives like Forest Connect and the support to the establishment of Forest Producer

Associations are all closely linked to the foreseen activities of the proposed new Facility. A separate

“Background and Proposal” document has been prepared for discussion on the future of the Facility beyond

2012.

The horizon searching exercises early on also came to the conclusion that a new facility must broaden it’s

perspectives beyond forestry. Farmers, CBO’s, IP’s, and others are living in, and basing their livelihoods on

landscapes in which forests play an important role. The proposed new Facility is thus looking at landscapes

rather than forests alone. The horizon searching process within FAO has already opened doors to other

departments working with production and people in landscapes and it is hoped that a new Facility with this

focus will help strengthen the much needed interdepartmental cooperation at FAO.

The Facility has learned and achieved a lot over the last ten years and the Facility Team feel proud and

happy. However, the horizon searching has been an interesting and stimulating process, finally landing in

something that we feel is doable and demanded by all levels.

The Facility Core Team is now full of energy and enthusiasm for the change and new challenges to come.

Eagerly awaiting the views and proposals of donors and SC,

Facility Core Team, January 2011


5

2010 - In brief

� Meetings of Donor and Facility Steering Committee in Rome in February

� Launch of 2nd Facility Partnership Agreements in Nicaragua, China, Senegal, Sudan and

Mozambique; and also with ACICAFOC

� Assessment of results of the 1st Partnership Agreement and drafting of new Concept Notes and

applications for a 2nd Partnership Agreement from: Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Lesotho,

Liberia, Namibia, South Africa and Vietnam

� Transfer of a record 146 small grants to mainly non-state stakeholders in 43 countries; total

amount 3.5 Million US$

� Coach visits to 90% of the Facility Partner Countries

� Joint Facility/GFP activities in Guatemala, Liberia and Mozambique

� Regional Initiatives on Forest Finance in West Africa and Central America

� Country experiences on Forest Finance presented at global events

� Initiative on the need for Reform of Forest Education in East Africa completed

� Training of Trainers (ToT) on “Conflict Resolution” in Asia and on “Stakeholder Participation” in

Latin America

� www.nfp-facility.org improved with a focus on results and lessons learned

� Systematic inclusion of result based management in all grants

� Surveys and analysis, including 20 nfp focal points, for the new publication “NFP in practice”

� EU Review and GFP Mid-Term Review

� “Horizon Searching” exercise resulting in a proposal for transferring to a new Facility


6


7

Facility governance

Facility Steering Committee (SC)

During the last meeting of the Facility Steering Committee (SC) in Rome (February 2010) it was decided that

2 positions of the donor representation will change: the representatives of UK and EC will step down and be

alternated by Finland and Germany. The proposal was endorsed by all SC members (see Annex I for the

composition of the SC for 2011).

Facility Management

In 2010 there were a few staff changes. The newly appointed FAO Forestry Officer for Europe (based in the

Sub-regional Office in Budapest, Hungary) accepted to coach Armenia and Georgia. The FAO Forestry Officer

for Eastern Africa (based in Sub-regional Office in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) retired and the countries he was

coaching are temporally taken care off by the Senior Operations Officer. The newly appointed FAO Forestry

Officer for the Sub-regional Office for Southern Africa (based in Harare, Zimbabwe) accepted to coach

Zimbabwe; he is assisted by a locally recruited forester financed by the Forestry Commission of Zimbabwe

with a salary supplement paid by FAO. The coach of Chile and Paraguay (based at the Regional Office for

Latin America in Santiago, Chile) became in mid 2010 the new FAO Representative for Paraguay and moved

to Asunción and will continue coaching Paraguay.

As can be seen, the in-kind support from FAO continues to be strong, both in HQ and in the field.

In December 2010, the staffing situation of the Facility was as follows.

NFP Facility Core Team

At HQ in Rome:

Ms. Marguerite France-Lanord, Information & Communications Officer

Ms. Zoraya Gonzales, Programme Assistant, Spanish Speaking Countries

Ms. Sophie Grouwels, GFP Coordinator and Coach for Gambia

Ms. Ulrika Häggmark, Programme Assistant, English and French Speaking Countries

Mr. Johan Lejeune, Senior Operations Officer

Ms. Daniela Mercuri, Budget Assistant

Mr. Luca Paolini, Information Systems Officer (FORIS), Information Services Team

Mr. Marco Perri, Information Systems Officer (Website), Information Services Team

Ms. Laura Schweitzer, Consultant, Information Services and GFP Teams

Mr. Jerker Thunberg, Manager

Mr. Jhony Zapata, Coach for Latin America

In the field:

Mr. Ignacio Bustos, Coach (part-time) for Ecuador, Colombia and Peru, based in Colombia

Mr. Michael Chihambakwe, Coach for Southern Africa, based in Pretoria, South Africa

Ms. Xiaojie Fan, Coach for the Asia and Pacific Region, based in Bangkok, Thailand

Mr. Wulf Killman, Coach (part-time) for Bolivia, based in Bolivia

Mr. Manuel Paveri, Coach (part-time) for Brazil, based in Brazil

Mr. Atse Yapi, Coach for West Africa, based in Accra, Ghana

Mr. François Wencélius, Coach (part-time) for Tunisia, Morocco, Niger and Mali


8

FAO support

As in the past, the Facility continued to enjoy excellent working relations with the FAO Forestry Department in

Rome and, in particular, with the Forest Policy and Economics Division (FOEP):

Mr. Marco Boscolo, National Forest Financing Strategies

Mr. Fred Kafeero, Coach for Kenya, Zambia and Uganda

Mr. Arvydas Lebedys, Coach for Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan

Ms. Qiang Ma, Coach for Yemen

Mr. Rao Matta, National Forest Financing Strategies

Ms. Eva Müller, Head, FOEP

Mr. Ewald Rametsteiner, Nfp Senior Officer

Mr. Olman Serrano, Investment and Private Sector Partnerships

The following Forest Officers, based at the FAO Regional and Sub-Regional Offices, devoted a significant

portion of their time to the Facility in coaching Facility Partner Countries:

Mr. Patrick Durst, coaching the Philippines

Mr. Claus Eckelmann, coaching Belize, Cuba, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Surinam, Guyana and CANARI

Mr. Michel Laverdière, coaching Ethiopia, Rwanda, Burundi and Sudan (now retired)

Mr. Aru Mathias, coaching Palau, Vanuatu and SPC

Mr. Jorge Meza, coaching Paraguay (became the FAO Representative for Paraguay)

Mr. Jean-Claude Nguinguiri, coaching DRC and Republic of Congo

Mr. Dominique Reeb, coaching Mongolia

Mr. Fernando Salinas, coaching Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mali and Sierra Leone

See Annex II for a complete list of coaches per Facility Partner Country.

Facility Team Meetings

Most Facility Coaches participated in the SC meeting in Rome in February 2010, followed by a 2-day training

and team building session at HQ. The FORIS database and management tool was demonstrated and training

was conducted on the new modalities of OIMES/RBM. In addition, a training session was given by PROFOR on

the Forest Poverty Tool Kit.


9

Past trend of nfp implementation in 9

countries supported by the Facility in 2010

Outcome and impact monitoring and evaluation system (OIMES)

Result Based Management (RBM) and the OIMES have been continually developed and introduced since

2008, and further implemented in 2010. It has been taken up by many countries as a tool for their own

monitoring of the nfp process. It has brought insight to the stakeholders on the nfp framework and the reality

and status of the nfp in the country.

Coaches were trained in 2010 to insert data in the FORIS database (into which OIMES has been set up) on

linking the small grants to the country level nfp assessment (“the matrix”). The indicators of the nfp at

national level are assessed in nfp workshops by stakeholders when discussing progress and defining new

priorities.

Distribution by main nfp principles of Facility supported activities in 2010

Cluster 1: Country leadership, Cluster 2: Inter and intra-sectoral linkages, Cluster 3: Partnerships and

participation

As could be expected, support has primarily been provided to the clusters covering partnerships and

participation and country ownership. It is, however, worth noting that in Asia, the picture looks different.

There, the much needed inter- and intra-sectoral linkages have received most of the support.

Regarding the impact of Facility support on the nfp of partner countries, OIMES can give some indications

only at this stage. Only 9 countries (Angola, China, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Paraguay

and South Africa) have, so far, completed 2 nfp assessments including the indicators selected for Facility

support. This small sample, nine countries, has given the following result with respect to Facility support to

nfp implementation (see graph below).

The graph shows that in those 9 countries, 81

% of Facility supported activities have a focus

on areas in which countries have difficulties.

About 20% of activities supported are in areas

already showing a positive trend. Data from

many more countries will become available

during 2011, and a thorough analysis of the

impact will then be undertaken. However,

more analysis based on OIMES and other

surveys will be presented in the new

publication “nfps in practice” to be published in

the first half of 2011. See also the “NFP

Facility-Beyond 2012, Background and

Proposal” document.


10

“nfp in practice” – A new publication

The Facility and FAO are preparing, with the in-kind support of GIZ, a new publication entitled

“nfp in practice”, following the “Understanding nfps” publication. It aims to reflect practical

experiences on successes and failures in the implementation of nfps.

Intensive research and analysis about perceptions, progress, and challenges in nfp

implementation have been conducted, based on the following surveys and interviews:

‘Survey monkey’ to all nfp focal points on basic points of the nfp (process, platform, degree of

uptake of nfp principles and major challenges).

Questionnaire in the FORIS database to coaches and nfp focal points of Facility partner

countries on integrating initiatives and strengthening the coordination role/platform,

addressing cross-sectoral issues/linkages to national development strategies, and best practice

examples.

In-depth interviews with coaches, nfp focal points and stakeholders on experiences, major

lessons, implications, recommendations and best practice examples.


11

Country support

As in the past, most of the attention, funds and energy went to the Country Support “pillar”. Following the

conclusion of the Steering Committee meeting in February 2010, 5 new country partnerships and 1 Regional

partnership were signed over the course of 2010 (see Table 1).

The Facility organised “Nfp’s for All” training events in 20 countries, bringing Government and Non-

Government stakeholders up to date on nfp’s, OIMES, the modus operandi of the Facility, stakeholder

participation and conflict management. Due to the security situation in Pakistan, the planned launching

workshop could not be organized there, but coaching over Skype and e-mail has worked out well.

Similar workshops, focusing on achievements and OIMES, were organized in countries which were slow in the

past but wanted to re-activate their nfp process.

Eight countries went through the evaluation process and submitted applications for a second agreement (see

separate document on the review and ranking of the applications). Coaching was provided to the countries

which requested assistance in that evaluation process.

In 2010, the Facility established 146 small grants with stakeholders (87% with non-state actors) in 43

countries and 2 regional organizations, totalling 3.5 million US$.

Facility Partnerships

Since no new countries were admitted, the number of Facility Partner Countries remains 70, plus the 4

Regional Organisations. The table below provides the history of admission of Facility Partners.


12

Table 1: Admission of Facility partners since 2002

Admission year Country / Regional Organization

2002

(start of the Facility)

8 partners

Chile, China, ACICAFOC, Malawi, Mongolia, Nigeria, Thailand,

Tanzania

2003

(SC decision/December 2002)

7 partners

CCAD, Ghana, Indonesia, Mali, Namibia, Philippines, Senegal

2003

(SC decision/July 2003)

15 new partners

Colombia, Cuba, DR Congo, Ecuador, Honduras, Kenya, Lesotho,

Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Paraguay, Rwanda, South Africa,

Tunisia, Uganda

2004

(SC decision/December 2003)

8 new partners

Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Georgia, Jamaica,

Pakistan, Sudan, Vanuatu

2005

(SC decision/January 2005)

8 new partners

Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Nicaragua, Palau, Viet Nam, Zambia, SPC,

CANARI

2007


9 new partners

Sierra Leone, Angola, Uzbekistan, Dominican Republic, Guinea, El

Salvador, Laos, Cambodia, Belize

2008


6 new partners

Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Nepal, Yemen

2 Countries approved for a 2nd partnership Agreement

Guatemala, Honduras

2009

(SC decision/February 2009)

13 new partners

Bhutan, Bolivia, Burundi, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia,

Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Liberia, Peru, Suriname, Togo, Zimbabwe


China, Ecuador, Nigeria, Paraguay, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia

2010

(SC decision/February 2010)


Mozambique, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Senegal and Sudan

1 Partner Organisation approved for a 2nd partnership

Agreement

ACICAFOC

2010

Concept Notes received

(Facility Management Decision)


Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Lesotho, Liberia, Namibia, South

Africa, and Vietnam

Small Grants

In 2010, the Facility transferred 146 small grants to stakeholders in Partner Countries totalling almost 3.5

million US$ (average grant is 23,800 US$). This is the highest number ever and a significant increase in the

number of small grants and funds disbursed in comparison to 2009 (116 grants and 2.6 million US$). The

reason for this increase is that the 15 high performing partners have received a 2nd Facility Agreement since

2008 (additional 200,000 US$, on top of the initial 300,000 US$) and continue having cycles of priority

setting, calls for proposals, and ranking and selection of proposals leading to Letters of Agreements. Another

reason for the increase is that the coaches have visited each partner country at least once a year, and


13

provided the rather slow countries with information on neighbouring countries where the process is moving

faster. That has created much needed stimulation in several countries. In addition, the Facility has organised

a number of Regional events around participation, conflict resolution and financing, which have attracted

participants from most partner countries, including the dormant and slow ones, and this has stimulated some

countries to give their nfp more priority.

The Facility administration has accumulated good experience in handling the small grants in an efficient way.

The database, FORIS, is helping the process enormously as no time is lost to monitoring the different

payments linked to the signing of the contract or reports and other outputs. In cases where the Recipient

organisation was not able to open a bank account, or for other reasons, the Facility can finance the activity

through the FAO Representation.

Table 2: Small grants since 2002 and established in 2010

2002-2010 2010

Region

Number

of

grants

Total

amount

(US$)

Total

amount (%)

Number of

grants

Total amount

(US$)

Total

amount

(%)

Africa 319 6,505,085 41% 84 1,599,450 46%

Asia Pacific 95 2,441,515 15% 18 456,080 13%

Latin America

and Caribbean 224 5,483,305 34% 42 1,309,586 38%

Near East 1 7,500 0% 0 0 0%

Western and

Central Asia 25 435,800 3% 0 0 0%

Regional

organisations 19 1,146,990 7% 2 120,000 3%

Grand total 683 16,020,195 100% 146 3,485,116 100%

�

From the point of view of distribution of the funds, it is clear from Table 2 above that Africa received, in 2010,

almost half of funds, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (38%). As in the past, in Asia-Pacific, the

Facility country support is far less than in other regions, despite effective coaching. The reason is that Asian

Countries usually have much more donor support for the Forestry sector and thus the Facility with its

procedure of open calls for proposals and transparent process is getting less priority by the national forestry

agencies. Some Asian countries also have a problem with capacity to organise their nfp (language, cultural,

strong hierarchic administration). In the Pacific sub-region, the three partnerships are dormant basically due

to lack of coaching capacity.

Grant beneficiaries

Since the start in 2002, about 70% of the grants have been established in support of civil society

organizations and 30% were signed with National Forestry Agencies (for coordination of the nfp process) and

other Government Agencies (such as Research and Decentralised Forestry offices). Private sector associations

have received only 6% of the funds.

In 2010, the Facility mainly supported NGOs, some 60% of the funds, followed by Central Forestry Authorities

(CFA). See graph on the next page.


14

Distribution of the small grants per beneficiary since 2002 and in 2010

A complete list of small grants since 2002, together with a short summary of the activity supported, is

available in a separate document

Activities Supported

In 2009, the Facility defined a new set of keywords to briefly capture the thematic area and the type of

activity reflected in the grant documentation. In 2010, all grants were assessed according to the new

keywords set.

Distribution of the small grants per main activity since 2002 and in 2010

The above figures, produced through FORIS, show that in 2010, about 20% of the funds were used for

coordination of the nfp process. These funds are received by the National Forest Authorities. It also

sometimes includes other tasks which can best be implemented by the government. In 2010, one third of the

funds went to civil society organisations to carry out so called “Pilot cases”, which are concrete activities

potentially replicable in other regions of the country, such as establishing county-level fora, testing

Community Forestry Approaches, setting up demonstrations and exchanges on agroforestry and forestry

methods. “Pilot cases” are related to the implementation, by communities and other local organizations, of

the nfp in the field. The activities under GFP in Latin America and Africa are labelled “Pilot cases”.


15

Thematic areas supported

The figure below describes the thematic areas supported since the beginning in 2002.

The main thematic areas supported are: Forest Management and Community Forestry, followed by

Governance, Forest Protection and Financing Strategies.

Thematic area Number of LoAs

Forest management 222

Forest plantation 66

Forest resources 67

Watershed management 19

Total 374

Community forestry 246

Indigenous knowledge 30

Livelihoods 34

Non wood forest products 60

Total 370

Conflict resolution 23

Forest tenure 6

Governance 146

Land use 31

Legislation 60

Total 266

Biodiversity 16

Forest protection 118

Wildlife 5

Total 139

Timber industry 49

Trade 49

Wood energy 22

Total 120

Financing strategies 86

Agroforestry 42

Urban forestry 2

Total 44

Forestry education 17

Climate change 9

Desertification 7

Total 16

Gender 12

Cross-sector outreach 12


16

Cambodia:

Promoting stakeholder participation in national forest policy dialogue

In 2008, the Forestry Administration, together with forestry stakeholders, embarked on a

process to develop their national forest programme (NFP) as a significant step towards SFM.

This was done with financial and technical support from different development partners,

including the NFP Facility and Denmark. The NFP in Cambodia is a forestry strategic framework

guiding forestry development until 2030, aimed at meeting local, national and global needs by

managing forest resources in a sustainable manner for the benefit of present and future

generations. The NFP includes six specific programmes of forest demarcation, national forest

management and conservation, forest law enforcement and governance, community forestry,

capacity building and research, and sustainable forest financing. The document was adopted

by the Royal Government of Cambodia on the 18th October 2010 and launched for full

implementation on the 29th December 2010.

The development of the NFP in Cambodia has demonstrated good multi-stakeholder

participation. Six consultation workshops were organized in 2009 with support from the

Facility. The workshops were attended by a wide range of stakeholder groups at national,

regional and provincial levels from throughout the country. The wide and diverse range of

stakeholder groups involved throughout the NFP identification and formulation process

highlighted a fundamental need for communication and extension to reach all stakeholders so

as to optimize active participation. Monitoring and review of the process, as well as transparent

and systematic information, sharing are keys to success.

The approach and design of each consultation workshop was well prepared, continually

adapted and improved. This allowed the organizing teams to collect different views and

feedback, and to incorporate these into the final draft of the NFP document. Bringing

stakeholders together for such a major undertaking was a significant achievement in

Cambodia. The development of working relationships, trust building, confidence raising and

capacity development, were all great challenges and took significant time to evolve.

Country Coaching

In 2010 the Facility engaged 20 different staff (“coaches”) to provide support to the 70 Partner Countries and 4

Regional Partners (see the list of coaches in Annex II). Except for security concerns in a few countries and some

“non-responding” countries, all partners have been visited at least once in 2010. As in the past, to reduce costs,

some Focal Points and key stakeholders were periodically invited to a neighbouring partner country or to a

regional meeting to meet with the coach, and to discuss the progress of the nfp in the country.

As in previous years, coaches spent between 50% and 75% of their time on policy backstopping. Overall, an

estimated 55% of available coaching time was spent on policy backstopping and advisory services, which is

charged to “Country Support”.

“Nfp’s for All” Training

Introductory Training Module (ITM)

The ITM under the “Nfp’s for All” initiative is part of the Country Support provided to Partner Countries and was

used again in 2010 during the launching workshop for the 2nd Facility Agreement (China, Nicaragua, Senegal,

Mozambique and Sudan), and for workshops in countries which wanted to re-start their nfp process (Burundi,

Rwanda, Nepal and Mongolia). The purpose of the 2 or 3 day workshop is to increase country ownership of the

nfp, to enhance broad stakeholder participation and to build national capacity for nfp implementation at the

country level. Also included are Result Based Management and OIMES training.

In these workshops, which are chaired by the NFP Focal Point or the Director of the Forestry Department, all key


17

forestry stakeholders are invited (government and non-government), and between 25 and 50 people usually

participate. Based on the discussions and the assessment of the nfp (matrix) by the stakeholders, priority

actions are identified, a workplan drafted, and the Terms of Reference for the call for proposals established.

Enhancing participation

FAO and the Facility have continued to strengthen capacities of countries, by providing tools and practical

methods which government and non-government stakeholders can use to ensure the participation of a wider

number of stakeholder groups and institutions in forestry decision-making and implementation of forest policies.

The benefits from the Training of Trainers on “enhancing participation” conducted in 2009 in Africa were realised

in 2010 when the trainers (based in the Region) were utilised to meet country requests for capacity building on

the subject. In this way the following African countries have received training on enhancing participation in nfps:

Zambia (April), Lesotho (May), Malawi (June), Gambia (July), Uganda (July) and Liberia (November).

In response to the needs of the Latin American region, FAO and the Facility conducted a training course for staff

of CATIE, as a starting point for them to later offer the training to countries in the Region. To support the

training of trainers efforts, a trainers’ manual, complete with an accompanying CD, was produced and translated

into French and Spanish.

Conflict Management

A similar strategy was applied for the module on “collaborative conflict management”, where a partnership was

developed with RECOFTC (Regional institution based in Thailand) to jointly work with FAO and the Facility in

developing and delivering a Training of Trainers module for participants in SE Asia. This phased training involved

5 countries, including China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Philippines and Thailand.

The training was articulated into 4 phases:

1st Phase: Pre-course assignment

2nd Phase: Training of Trainers workshop (March-April 2010)

3rd Phase: National level training (June to September 2010)

4th Phase: Lesson learning workshop (November 2010)

The course involved participants in a process of ongoing critical reflection, allowing them to link the course

contents with their own experiences, and apply conflict management techniques and training methods to their

specific contexts. Selected key-trainers participated in order to develop and facilitate high quality training, done

in a participatory manner, so as to effectively address conflict management in nfps. Local, national and

international agencies, NGOs and governments that are actively working on conflict mitigation, management

and transformation processes and/or are substantially involved in training were invited to nominate suitable

staff members for participation in the course.

The trainers, have since then organised training activities on collaborative conflict management, including

mediation and negotiation techniques in China (October), Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines (September) and

Thailand (November).

Increased awareness by countries about the existence of these capacity building modules has heightened the

demand for them, consequently FAO and the Facility will continue to engage with the trained trainers in the

region to respond to needs, as more innovative approaches are being developed to ensure a further deepening

and spread of skills at decentralised levels within countries.

Support to Smallholder Forest Producers Associations

FAO and the Facility have been approached by Agricord (European coordinating body set up by farmer and

farmers’ organisations and the agricultural agencies of Belgium, Finland, France, the Netherlands and Sweden)

to participate in the “Smallholder Forest Producer Associations (SFPA) Development Fund”. Partners and

stakeholders in the SFPA Development Fund include: AgriCord, FAO, the Finnish Central Union of Agricultural

Producers and Forestry Owners (MTK) and the Federation of Swedish Family Forest Owners (LRF); and financial

support is provided by the Finnish and Swedish governments.

The general objective of the SFPA Development Fund is to support the establishment and functioning of

smallholder farmer organizations in the forestry sector, both in timber and non-timber forest products in


18

developing countries. Groups require timely opportunities for dialogue and appropriate business development

and financial services in support of sustainable smallholder agro-forest business activities. While smallholders in

developing countries have established member-based organizations in the agricultural sector at local, provincial

and national levels, such organizations are rarely developed in the forestry sector. The specific objective of

SFPAs is to promote the sustainable management of family, community and Indigenous forests (across contexts

where different rights prevail) and to offer products and services to the society.

“Twinning” has been used to stimulate peer-to-peer cooperation amongst private sector forest producers in

selected pilot-countries, including Vietnam, Ethiopia and Kenya. The Finnish and Swedish partners have made

available advisory services to support local twinning organizations in the implementation of the projects. The

practical piece of the work is being carried out completely by local partners. As part of these twinning

experiences, a variety of activities are ongoing including practical forest management (seedling production,

planting and harvesting); forestry business development (cooperative forest business planning and market

surveys of different forest products) and institutional development (enhancement of forest producer cooperation

and building-up of producer organizations). The pilot projects are scheduled to run through mid-2011. A further

expansion, 2010-2013 will be planned if the initial experience is positive. More information can be found at:

http://www.fao.org/forestry/enterprises/60778/en/

The Facility and the Growing Forest Partnership (GFP)

Growing Forest Partnerships (GFP) was initiated in 2009 with the aim of catalyzing and reinforcing effective

partnerships. The program envisions collaboration with people directly involved with and having an impact on

forests on a day-to-day basis. This type of collaborative, grassroots approach has begun to deliver realistic,

practical and sustainable solutions to challenges facing forests and rural people, and has offered an alternative

to large-scale, top-down, one size fits all approaches.

The Facility aims to establish sustainable stakeholder processes in countries. This objective necessitates a

collaborative effort by donors and national ministries in support of nationally owned, coordinated, and driven

processes. For this reason, the Facility became active in the preparation of the GFP initiative, together with FAO,

World Bank, IUCN and IIED. The GFP creates an opportunity to form better partnerships and coordination,

based on existing nfp processes and Facility mechanisms, and to more efficiently use existing and new resources

at the national level in Facility partner countries.

The program is currently operational in five pilot countries, including Ghana, Guatemala, Liberia, Mozambique

and Nepal. Strategies and processes look different in each country, but generally include a combination of

capacity building, information sharing and partnership facilitation activities. The Facility has been the main

facilitator of GFP in Guatemala and Liberia (and since the end of 2010, also in Mozambique) and has thus linked

the GFP support closely to the ongoing nfp activities, in particular to the strengthening of stakeholder

representation and work on forest financing.

In Guatemala, the community forestry alliance (‘Alianza’) continued to develop and thrive with the support of

GFP, and due to their inputs and lobbying, a program called PINPEP was passed at the end of 2010 by the

Guatemalan Congress to provide reforestation incentives to smallholders, with or without formal land tenure.

GFP also supported capacity building and dialogue related to forest finance preparedness and policies by

convening trainings and policy discussions and supporting relevant research studies and surveys.

In Liberia, the GFP has, since early 2010, contributed to the establishment and operations of a National Forest

Forum and several County Forest Forums, ensuring broad and inclusive stakeholder participation. GFP has also

supported an inventory of and awareness raising on the economic importance of NTFPs in Liberia.


19

“The Alianza” in Guatemala

The Alianza Nacional de Organizaciones Forestales Comunitarias de Guatemala was created

with support from GFP, a forum for small-scale forest users, communities and indigenous

groups to find a common voice to influence national and international forest policy.

Made up of more than 400 community groups and about 77,000 members, the Alianza

represents an unprecedented level of coordination among indigenous people and community

forestry organisations in Guatemala.

The Alianza is a strong platform for engaging people in national decision-making processes,

particularly in identifying forest financing instruments, including REDD, that can best benefit

and build the capacity of smallholders and forest communities to sustainably manage their

forest resources and engage proactively in the policy dialogue and forest development.

More than 388,000 Guatemalans who depend on forests for their livelihoods have benefited

from the work of the Alianza. Most recently, the Alianza was instrumental in passing a

significant legislation to financially support small holders.

A National Forest Forum (NFF) in Liberia

In 2010, Liberia established a nfp platform using Facility support. The nfp platform is

composed of the National Forest Forum (NFF), 15 County Forest Forums (CFF) and the nfp

National Multi-stakeholder Steering Committee (NMSC). The NMSC is the coordinating body

and the operational arm of the NFF with its secretariat placed at the Forestry Development

Authority (FDA).

The NFF representatives of the CFF were selected after identification and analysis at chiefdom,

district and county levels. The NFF is composed of the representatives of the CFFs and key

forestry stakeholders.

In November 2010, a well attended launching workshop of the NFF was held, bringing together

70 representatives from the 15 CFFs and the main development partners in Liberia. The

participants reached a common understanding on the role of the CFFs and the NFF. They also

agreed on how to make the process sustainable, and decided on the next steps in order to

keep the nfp process moving.

The stakeholders considered the nfp platform as a crucial element for forestry development in

Liberia since it democratically provides all stakeholders with a voice and assures good

(decentralised) governance of the forestry, climate change and natural resources sectors. The

process also guarantees a strengthened information flow from bottom up and vice-versa, and a

stronger multi-stakeholder participation in the policy processes for articulated inputs,

socialization, validation, implementation of laws and hot issues.

Forest-related initiatives in Liberia such as VPA, FLEGT, Forest Connect, NLBI, etc.,

governmental institutions, and development partners are encouraged to use this nfp platform

to coordinate their efforts and build synergies. If so, the strengthened voice and representation

of stakeholders from the Counties, Districts and Chiefdoms will have an impact at national

level.


20

Facility support to National Forest Financing Strategies

In a number of partner countries, the Facility, in close collaboration with FAO and other partners, has provided

further support in 2010 to the development of National Forest Financing Strategies (NFFS) and selected

financing instruments. The purpose of this support is to encourage and guarantee the active participation of

forest and financial stakeholders in the process of discussing, elaborating and implementing the NFFS, as a tool

for strengthen nfp implementation. Some of the key activities and achievements are presented below.

In Guatemala, the most significant achievement was the passage by the National Congress, (on 17 November

2010), of the “PINPEP law”, decree 51-2010, that provides incentives to small forest holders with areas of less

than 15 hectares for forestry activities. The incentives will be financed through an annual allocation of about

0.5% of the national public operations budget. It is expected that over 400,000 people will directly benefit from

this publicly supported incentive scheme. This achievement, among other things, speaks to the power of

improving sector governance and strengthening the organization of small producers.

In Guatemala, support was also provided through the analysis of investment opportunities for the use of wood

residues generated from forest harvesting and wood processing mills. Potential options for the use of biomass as

an energy source and an overview of its contribution to climate change mitigation were presented. A brief

analysis showed that if all currently generated wood residues were utilized for electricity generation, the country

could save up to US$ 150 million annually, through the replacement of fossil fuels. This would translate into an

additional US$ 7 million through the sale of certificate emissions reductions (CERs).

In Paraguay, thanks to a dialogue between forest and finance representatives that started in 2009, the Agencia

Financiera de Desarrollo (AFD), a public development bank, launched in 2010 a US$2 million credit line

(PROFORESTAL) for planting activities.

In Uganda, mutual learning is taking place between the forest and finance sectors. This process is helping to

identify key forest finance instruments (e.g., the Tree Fund) and ensure greater involvement of forest

stakeholders in the budget process, as well as in discussions about governance reform.

In the Asia and Pacific Region, the Facility has actively supported the development of a project proposal to assist

partner countries to augment resources for financing SFM. The proposal, which has emerged from various FAO

technical inputs, close collaboration with other development partners, and strong regional ownership, identified

the need for developing comprehensive national forest financing strategies. During 2011, the Facility will support

the development of these strategies in three countries in the region, in addition to helping to implement some of

the forest financing activities identified at the regional level.

In West Africa, forests are critical to supporting the livelihoods of millions of local people; yet the absence of

adequate and readily accessible finance often threatens their sustainable management. This is particularly

challenging to small and community forestry initiatives which play an important role in rural development and

poverty alleviation in the region. While there have been some attempts to improve the situation, the information

on them is scattered and countries lack comprehensive national forest financing strategies. In response to this

need, the Facility, in collaboration with FAO and GFP, have launched an initiative to facilitate an exchange of

experiences on existing and innovative financing mechanisms and to devise plans to further strengthen forest

financing in the region. As a major step in this direction, a regional planning and knowledge-sharing workshop

for the countries in the ECOWAS region is being organized in Monrovia, Liberia, on 22 and 23 March 2011. This

initiative will ultimately lead to the development of practical, applicable, and sustainable financial mechanisms in

response to the challenges and opportunities identified for small holders and community forestry stakeholders.

A similar initiate is ongoing in Central America (see next page).


21

Practical, Applicable and Sustainable Financial Mechanisms in Central America

With support from the Facility, a Regional Forest Financing Strategy is being implemented by

the Asociación Coordinadora Indígena y Campesina de Agroforestería Comunitaria

Centroamericana (ACICAFOC), together with the Central American Commission for

Environment and Development (CCAD) and the Strategic Regional Forest Programme

(PERFOR) for Central America.

At the end of 2010, ACICAFOC initiated, in each of the 7 Central American countries, an

inventory of formal and non-formal financing mechanisms supporting Community Based

Organizations with their forest businesses. In each country, cases will be described and a

detailed analysis of each of them will be made, taking into account the factors leading to

success or failure of the cases. Discussion of the results and lessons learned will take place in

joint workshops in early 2011. The development of innovative, efficient, practical and at the

same time economically, socially and ecologically sustainable, financing mechanisms will be

based on the lessons learned in these cases and on other good experiences elsewhere.

The successful financial management of community-based forestry will contribute to poverty

reduction and will increase the level of social and environmental well-being in Central America.

The initiative will hopefully generate a new set of financial mechanisms.

These experiences highlight the importance of addressing a number of key institutional weaknesses that

currently limit constructive communication between the forestry and financing sectors, including:

� limited knowledge of financing language, instruments and processes; and isolation from other sectors

and from other key stakeholders within the sector;

� a legacy of dependence on public resources, both domestic and international, with a focus on limited

instruments; and

� inadequate attention paid to efforts to improve the investment climate and market development.

Methodology for Valuation of Forest Products and Services in Pakistan

Forests are growing in importance all over the world but their full contribution to GDP of any

country has often not been calculated, as forests were historically just considered a source of

timber and fire wood.

Since the significance of forests in eco-systems is now increasingly being recognized, there is a

need to develop a methodology for assessing the actual value of forest products and services in

order to persuade policy makers to give attention to the development of the forestry sector.

The Ministry of Environment in Pakistan, with financial assistance from the NFP Facility,

awarded a study on the valuation of forest products and services to WWF-Pakistan, who

subsequently developed a methodology. The study was a great step forward for the future

development of forestry in Pakistan since it will help forestry stakeholders to present its actual

contribution to GDP and persuade the Government to include forestry into sustainable

development plans for the country.


22

A participatory policy process in China

Sanming Prefecture of Fujian Province, in southeast China, has been a piloting area for

collective forest policy reform in China since 1980. In 2003, a collective forest tenure reform

system was initiated with the principle of “making ownership clear, liberalizing the operation

right, enforcing the user right and protecting the beneficial right”. Since then, the reform has

been lifted up as the national policy and has been expanded all over China.

With support of the State Forestry Administration and the NFP Facility, a series of activities

were carried out, including training in participatory forest policy process, establishing

coordinating team, identifying focus groups, conducting stakeholder consultation, organizing

public hearing, engaging media, developing vertical and horizontal partnership building among

governmental agencies of forestry, agriculture and land management.

This was the first time that China officially formulated a forest policy and regulatory tool

through participatory approaches. Great success has been achieved in mobilizing public

participation, enhancing capacity building, integrating policy formulation and strengthening

better coordination among authorities horizontally as well as vertically. All these achievements

have contributed greatly to the development of a more transparent, fair and just policy and

legislative formulation process in China.

Eco-tourism in national parks and protected areas in Vietnam

In November 2010, a national workshop was organised on mechanisms and policies to

promote eco-tourism activities compatible with conservation in national parks and protected

areas of Vietnam.

The initiative attracted much interest from stakeholders (national parks, nature reserves,

provincial departments of forest protection, NGOs, institutes, etc,). A series of

recommendations were formulated, and the proposals are being submitted to the Department

of Protection of Biodiversity within the Administration of Forestry (MARD). Some specific

recommendations were proposed, including establishing closer collaboration on economic

development of eco-tourism between the Protected Areas/National Parks and communities.

Another proposal was on introducing eco-tourism products to benefit local communities.

Mechanisms should be set up for collaboration, linking and facilitating communication. Laws on

tourism and forest protection should be institutionalised. Other recommendations were raised,

including the development of a master plan, promulgation of mechanisms and policies,

advertisement and promotion, training and human resource development, traditional

job/resume training, management and distribution and usage of revenue from ecotourism.

The workshop was a great opportunity for many stakeholders, including staff of national parks,

nature reserves, provincial departments of forest protection, NGOs, institutes and others to

discuss and propose recommendations for the development of a master plan on eco-tourism.

The proposal will be submitted to the Government for approval.


23

Information services

The 2010 Information Services activities have focused on the following:

� Upgrading the Facility database and website;

� Developing and disseminating Facility promotional material;

� Strengthening knowledge and capacities of nfp practitioners worldwide.

Facility Web Platform

The Facility web-based information platform (renewed in 2009) has been continuously improved for the coaches

who use it daily and for the web visitors. The following changes have been made.

Facility Database (FORIS)

Regular maintenance of the database has been done, as follows:

� A large part of the software coding has been improved to keep up with technology advances (third-

party libraries, tools, etc.).

� Some key components of the content management system have been designed for improving system

performance and stability of the website.

� The interface for better navigation (payments and LoAs) has been strengthened. The same interface

has been used for managing the data activities of the ACP FLEGT project.

Important improvements to the user friendly interface have been made:

� A new LoA flow control has been implemented for much more accurate tracking of the payments and

for LoAs (early closed or partially paid).

� A section reporting the non LoA grants has been created. Description of the activities implemented

under these funds, as well as keywords and summary of the achievements can be documented.

Display of these funds will be made available soon online on the website. The management level of the

payments has been reviewed for a more precise tracking of those funds.

� The suite of keywords established in 2009 has been completed for each LoA. The “search” engine

linking LoA keywords from FORIS to the online website has been completely revamped, providing rapid

and relevant information on the thematic area supported in the country.

OIMES in the FORIS database has been further developed:

� Coaches have successfully implemented the OIMES in FORIS, inserting for each LoA signed in 2010 the

indicators automatically reported at the country level. This gives in each country a picture of the Facility

support based on the LoAs inputs. In total, 60 countries now have an nfp matrix assessed by the

stakeholders.

� The administrative documents related to Facility operations, in particular LoAs, have been revised

including a section for OIMES, and are made available for the Facility staff in all languages on the

FORIS database.

Finally, a guide for the coaches to use FORIS consistently has been drafted and distributed. Each coach has

been trained individually in order to improve the quality of the content inserted in FORIS, much of which is

automatically linked to the online website, in particular the “key results” section of the LoAs.


24

Facility Website (www.nfp-facility.org)

The content of the website has been further enriched in 2010:

� Better linkages have been made to partner websites such as GFP and Tropenbos and in particular to

the FAO nfp website and nfp-related publications.

� New pages have been created on the Forest Financing Strategies activities, the Regional initiatives

(Forest and Water, Small-scale and community-based forest enterprises, Forestry education), the

climate change and nfps FAO-joint initiative, the promotion of forest industry development in the

Congo Basin, and the GFP activities in the countries.

� The News page, illustrated with pictures, has been regularly updated with the Facility workshops in

partner countries, the main activities in the field and the participation of the Facility at international

meetings. Most of the important documents related to the events have been uploaded.

� In 2010, coaches have made efforts to insert updated and precise information on the activities in the

countries to display the most up-to-date information online. As planned, country abstracts have been

reviewed and pictures have been inserted to illustrate activities done by the stakeholders.

Regular improvements for navigation have been made, for example the following:

� The search engine and website search interface has been developed for much improved accuracy and

speed;

� The custom Flash map has been replaced by standard Google Maps component; and

� The automatically generated pages containing information extracted from the Facility database have

been improved (Partnership information, LoA information, etc.).

Web Information and Statistics

The number of visits to the website in 2010 was 6,350 and therefore slightly more than in 2009, which counted

6,000 visitors. With 73% being new visitors and each spending a longer average time for each visit, there is, in

2010, a notable increased interest in the Facility.

In 2010, access to the Facility website was 47% higher through a direct visit and 7% higher through a referring

site (FAO Forestry Department, IISD, and international partner websites) than last year. Indeed, visits to the

website were 23% less coming from a search engine than in 2009. This means that the Facility website is better

known and is visited intentionally. The Homepage and the Map of the countries were the most visited pages of

the website, followed by the new pages created in 2010 such as the climate change and nfps initiative, the nfp

focal points list and the workshop on the forest industry development in the Congo Basin pages, which had

great success.

CPF Sourcebook on Funding for SFM

The CPF Sourcebook compiles information on funding sources from various sources for forestry, policies and

delivery mechanisms, with particular focus on projects in developing countries. FAO Forestry and the Facility

have, until the first months of 2010, updated the CPF Sourcebook. FAO has contributed technical expertise to

recent UNFF workshops on finance and is exploring ways to update and strengthen the content of the CPF

Sourcebook for SFM Funding in the future.

Promotion of the Facility

The modus operandi manual of the Facility has been translated into Spanish and widely distributed. Posters,

2010 calendars, flyers and brochures have been regularly sent to FAO Representation offices and nfp focal

points in the partner countries in particular for training and national workshops.


25

The Facility supported the FAO Regional Forestry Commissions (Asia-Pacific in June 2010 in Bhutan, Africa in

February 2010 in the Republic of Congo, Latin America-Caribbean in May 2010 in Guatemala). Special efforts

have been made to participate in the COFLAC Heads of Forestry dialogue on governance and cross sectoral

integration in purpose of identifying joint programmes in Latin America between 2010 and 2012.

For the occasion of COFO in October 2010, the Facility produced 2 new posters highlighting the process

dimension of the nfp and the gap between the role of forests for forest dependent people and the recognition of

the multiple uses of the forest at a national level. A working session on the lessons learnt on the nfp

implementation was held during COFO, and included 20 nfp focal points from partner countries. The Facility

participated in the COFO Plenary session “Communicating the potential of forestry to the finance sector” and the

GFP side event.

Facility Team members also participated in several regional meetings like ETFAG in Stockholm and the Forest

Dialogue (GFP) workshops in Brussels and Mombassa.

Nfp Update

The concept of the Nfp Update, collecting country information related to nfp background, nfp evaluation matrix

and forest policy and institutions is under revision. Based on the results of the survey for the joint FAO-Facility

draft publication on the nfp implementation experiences, the Nfp Update will indeed be most probably

redesigned and better linked to the PLI information collected by the FAO National Forestry Monitoring and

Assessment team.

The FAO Forestry Officer in charge of the Nfp Update is under recruitment. In 2010, a consultant consolidated

and improved the coverage of forest policy documents and nfp documents from countries. These are available

and will soon be posted online, including: a forest policy document from 71 countries and a NFP document from

53 countries.

Dissemination and Learning Processes

The learning processes have been covered in 2010 by 2 main activities: the drafting of a publication on the

experiences of the nfp implementation and the development of OIMES in partner countries.

In 2010, 19 countries completed an nfp assessment (matrix) in a participatory way with stakeholders groups (6

partner countries have done a second assessment, and 13 countries their first), and all grants signed in 2010

were linked to the nfp assessment (matrix) at country level.

At Country Level

In 2010, 25% of the grants allocated in the partner countries were related to information and training. In

addition most of the pilot cases (33% of the grants in 2010) include some learning activities. Summaries,

lessons learnt and recommendations from all activities completed since 2002 with Facility support have been

made available on the website.

The initiative on “Forest and Water” started in 2009 at regional level has been further developed at national

level and in particular special efforts were made in Nicaragua to support local initiatives related to compensation

for the provision of water from forests. See the box next page.


26

“Forest and Water” initiative

Follow up in Nicaragua

In 2009, 27 practical cases on compensatory mechanisms to forests for the provision of water

in Latin America were discussed and a decision was made to support such initiatives at country

level.

In 2010 in Nicaragua, “Groups interested in the recognition of the role of forests in the

production of water” were created with Facility support. Exchange visits for approximately 300

participants (managers and technicians of the Municipal Environmental Units, NGOs and policy

makers at sub-national level and at national level, such as the Forestry Department, the

Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture) to share experiences about local

programmes which received compensation for forests’ provision of water were organised.

In December 2010, a network of stakeholders interested in “Forest and Water” was established

with an elected Steering Committee. A simple model for the economic valuation of water

services provided by forests has been discussed. Various governmental institutions and

development agencies have expressed interest and commitment to supporting this network.

Additionally, the Facility is providing support to five initiatives related to “Forest and Water” in

Nicaragua to raise awareness among suppliers and users of water services of the

environmental goods and services provided by forests. The initiative is promoting the

establishment of strategic alliances for the recognition of environmental services among

suppliers and users of water. It resulted in the creation of a legal and institutional framework

at municipal level to recognise and compensate for the environmental services (water)

provided by suppliers. More information may be found on the Facility web page: www.nfp-

facility.org/66211/en/ in the window: "Regional Initiatives", "Forest and water".

At the Regional Level

Support to national forest programmes has been seen as a priority by the Latin American and Caribbean

Forestry Commission (COFLAC). Therefore, the Commission decided to carry out regional knowledge exchanges

related to different relevant forestry issues influencing the sector. The regional nfp focal points from the

Caribbean, Central America and South American countries have pointed out at COFLAC that forest policy and

institutional issues are being discussed at national fora across the region but that there is however a need to

strengthen national and institutional capacities for a better policy and programme implementation. Based on this

observation, the Facility has established an exchange mechanism to facilitate a mutual learning process on nfp

related topics such as “Forest and Water”, and to support the strengthening of the forestry sector in Latin

America and the Caribbean countries.

At the Global Level

The Forestry Department of FAO and the Facility have initiated a joint effort to assist countries to address

emerging policy issues related to forests and climate change by integrating climate change considerations into

national forest programmes.

� A preliminary analysis of the major challenges and opportunities climate change poses for the forest

sector and the related policy issues has been undertaken in Cambodia, Paraguay, South Africa and

Tanzania (December 2009 – April 2010). The resulting document has served as background material

for a national workshop held in each country to raise awareness, exchange information and gather

stakeholder views on policy-relevant issues and possible responses regarding forests and climate

change.


27

� The results of the workshops have been used in the second phase in which generic guidelines for the

integration of climate change considerations into national forest policies through national forest

programme processes is being developed. An expert consultation was held in September 2010 at FAO

HQ. National and international forest policy and climate change experts, including a participant from

each of the four national stakeholder workshops commented the draft guidelines which will be finalised

and tested in 2011.

Regular dissemination of publications on the Facility and the nfps was done to all partner countries for national

workshops and nfp focal points. The manual describing the nfp principles and the procedures of the Facility has

been translated into Spanish. A 2010 Facility desk calendar was printed and disseminated all over the world.

Two new posters were published and disseminated.

Enhancing Knowledge and Capacities

The “Nfp’s for All” modules on Conflict Management and Resolution and Stakeholders Participation Enhancement

were implemented intensively in 2010. Details are given in the Country support section of this report.

Support to National Financing Strategies and Mechanisms for sustainable use and conservation of forests was

provided in Latin America and started in Africa. Details can be found in the Country Support of this report.

The initiative on enhancing knowledge and capacities with ANAFE (ICRAF) on “Revitalising Forest Education in

Eastern African Countries”, started in 2009, was further developed as described in the Box below.

Revitalizing Forest Education in East Africa

A widening gap between today’s role of trees and forests and what is being taught in forestry

education has been noted. Therefore, it was felt that reforms are urgently needed in Forestry

Education to meet current and future needs because forestry curricula, pedagogy and learning

resources remain largely traditional and grossly inadequate for addressing current challenges,

especially meeting rural development needs, biodiversity, climate change, water, energy,

wildlife & environmental conservation and sustenance of agricultural productivity. The links of

forestry to livelihoods, business and development require a complete re-orientation, in tandem

with recent and future perspectives in integrated natural resources management.

With the support of the Facility, a study was conducted in 2010 by ANAFE in four East African

countries (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Ethiopia). A Round Table of experts was held in Dar

Es Salaam in May 2010 to discuss the study findings and make suggestions for revitalizing

forestry education in Africa. The study recommends developing new programmes, reviewing

existing ones and the delivery methods, enhancing the capacity of training institutions,

improving the sharing of information and resources, increasing participation of stakeholders in

training activities, improving marketing of forestry and reviewing recruitment requirements to

forestry training programmes, as some of the areas of major focus.

Concerted efforts are needed particularly at global and regional levels to design, coordinate

and link relevant institutions and stakeholders to help transform forestry education. Inter-

institutional collaboration through the networking of institutions and other stakeholders will

augment efforts by individual countries or institutions. New resources are needed to finance

improved forestry education programmes.


28


29

Financial aspects

Overall situation at the end of 2010

The funding of the Facility was satisfactory in 2010. No new donors came on board during the year, but

discussions with the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV) in Germany has

resulted in a commitment for support in 2011 - 12. The long term agreements with the EC, the UK and Sweden

all continued running in 2010, and annual contributions have been received from Finland, Germany (GIZ, in

kind) and the USA. The UK agreement came to an end in 2010 and discussions have been initiated for a new

agreement. The WB support for GFP in Facility partner countries is coming to an end in 2011 and strategic

discussions with partners have resulted in a proposal integrating the learning from GFP into a future Facility (see

separate document, Facility beyond 2012).

The funding situation of the Facility for the coming 1.5 years (2011 to mid-2012) is encouraging, with the

commitments of EC, Sweden and the new agreement with Germany as a base. In addition, continued support is

expected from the steady annual contributors, Finland and the USA. Indirect contributions are expected from

the FAO partnership programmes with the Netherlands and Norway. In addition, new long term agreements will

be sought with UK, EC and Sweden once a decision has been taken on the way forward after mid-2012. A new

Programme Document will be prepared and discussions for support will be started with all potential donors.

FAO is committed to continued in-kind support and it is expected that it will continue in the years to come at an

equally high level as in 2009 and 2010.

2010 Budget Implementation

Table 7 indicates the Facility expenditures, actual (paid directly from HQ) and committed (transferred to FAO

Representations in the countries for payment of the Letters of Agreement in different instalments) for the period

of January to November 2009 and forecasted for December against the budget approved by the SC for 2010.


30

Table 3: Facility expenditures in 2010 (US$)

NATIONAL FOREST PROGRAMME FACILITY 2010

EXPENDITURES Planned Actual/Committed

Country Support

Facility Grants

-Africa 1,000,000 1,492,0001

-Asia & Pacific 450,000 388,000

-Central Asia & Near East 150,000 0

-Latin America & Caribbean 1,000,000 1,430,0002

Nfp’s for All (awareness/capacity)

Testing and introduction of tools

200,000

100,000

175,000

50,000

Policy Backstopping 900,000 636,000

Total 3,650,000 4,171,000

Information Services

Facility Web Platform 25,000 4,000

Dissemination & Learning 170,000 95,000

Knowledge & Capacity Building 210,000 82,000

Promotion of the Facility (UNFF, WFC, CLI) 5,000 10,000

Total 410,000 201,000

Programme Delivery

Personnel 1,200,000 1,404,000

Travel, GOE & Equipment 200,000 270,000

OIMES 5,000 0

Total 1,405,000 1,674,000

TOTAL DIRECT COST 5,465,000 6,046,000

Indirect Support Cost 310,000 357,000

GRAND TOTAL 5,775,000 6,403,000

As presented in Table 3, the overall expenditures in 2010 amount to 111% of the amount planned and

approved and is 1 million more than in 2009. The financial outcome for 2010 is commented upon in the

following.

Country Support

Support to countries represents 65% of total expenditures (64% in 2009). Of this, 3,5 Million US$ or 55% of the

total expenditures (2.6 Million US$ and 48% in 2009) was provided as direct support, in the form of small

grants to stakeholders in partner countries (Table 4). Since 2002, the direct support to countries, in the form of

small grants, represents 53% of total programme costs (30 million US$).

The support to Africa is 50 % and to Latin America 40% above planned and Asia is almost on plan. The only

exception to good performance is Central Asia having not received any small grants at all in 2010. The total

number of small grants is by far the highest in Africa. The average size of the grants is also much smaller in

Africa (19,000) than in the other regions (25,000 in Asia and 31,000 in Latin America). The average grant in

Latin America is almost double the amount in Africa (29,000 compared to 17,000).

The total lack of small grants to Central Asia is a combined effect of slow country processes and low Facility

coaching capacity. The coaching arrangements for Central Asia were thus changed at the end of 2010.

As for Asia, the nfp process has still not taken off in Nepal and Bhutan, and the process in Cambodia has come

1 Includes US$ 95,000 for GFP Mozambique and US$ 92,000 GFP Liberia

2 Includes US$ 450,000 for GFP Guatemala


31

to a standstill, in waiting for Government approval after the successful nfp stakeholder formulation process.

Compared to 2009, the nfp process has finally taken off in Laos. The South Pacific Islands, Palau, Vanuatu and

the regional SPC are not moving mainly due to lack of coaching capacity (relying on FAO sub-regional staff). In

Indonesia, the federal-level support for the nfp process is lacking as they are fully occupied with the much larger

climate related programs and projects.

In total, 43 partner countries (Table 8), out of 70, received direct country support in 2010 (41 in 2009). As in

previous years, very few countries are spending the target of 100,000 US$ per year. Average annual country

support amounts to less than 70,000 US$ (not counting the GFP support to Guatemala, Liberia and

Mozambique).

The budget for the “Nfp’s for All” initiative was almost spent as planned. The launching of second partnership

agreements was done, involving the stakeholder committees, but not in the form of capacity building workshops

as no need for this was expressed. The “Nfp’s for All” module on “Participation” was implemented in Malawi,

Lesotho, Liberia, Gambia, Uganda and Zambia. In addition, a Latin American ToT event was implemented at

CATIE in Costa Rica. An Asian ToT on the “Conflict Management” module was implemented at RECOFTC in

Thailand, and subsequent national workshops were held in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines and

Thailand.

The cost for Policy Backstopping in 2010 is on the same level as in 2009 and corresponds to 10% of the total

costs. It is slightly lower than expected as the in-kind support from FAO, in terms of regional and sub-regional

staff time dedicated to policy backstopping, remained at a high level in 2010.


32

Table 4: Facility’s Direct Country Support in 20103

Region Country No. of

grants

Total amount

(US$)

% of total

Africa Angola 2 33,030

Benin 5 78,450

Burundi 1 15,000

Cape Verde 1 25,000

Côte d'Ivoire 1 36,500

Gambia 3 71,000

Ghana 1 4,570

Guinea 3 37,800

Kenya 2 49,000

Lesotho 3 49,000

Liberia 20 349,470

Malawi 1 21,200

Mozambique 7 181,660

Namibia 2 82,200

Niger 1 24,500

Nigeria 3 60,500

Rwanda 4 90,000

Senegal 2 32,600

Sierra Leone 4 55,500

South Africa 2 55,200

Sudan 1 9,200

Tanzania, United Rep of 5 82,100

Togo 1 32,300

Tunisia 1 14,000

Uganda 3 41,250

Zimbabwe 5 68,420

Total 84 1,599,450 46%

Asia Pacific China 4 122,860

Indonesia 4 40,000

Laos 4 155,000

Thailand 2 68,220

Viet Nam 4 70,000

Total 18 456,080 13%

Bolivia 2 27,000 Latin America

and Caribbean Brazil 2 196,583

Colombia 3 75,000

Cuba 8 100,000

El Salvador 6 127,754

Guatemala 2 471,580

Guyana 2 50,000

Jamaica 1 25,000

Nicaragua 7 82,815

Paraguay 5 59,300

Peru 3 69,554

Suriname 1 25,000

Total 42 1,309,586 38%

Regional Partner Organizations Total 2 120,000 3%

Grand total 146 3,485,116 100%

3 Includes in country ”nfp’s for all” workshops


33

Information Services

Information services correspond to only 3% of the total expenditures in 2010 (7% in 2009) and only

about half of the budget were actually spent. Apart from the Nfp’s for All modules, as described and

budgeted under Country Support (see above) the focus in 2010 was on experience sharing and learning

within and between countries. The initiative on the need for reform of Forest Education in East Africa

concluded in 2010 and a few learning events were organised at the regional forestry commissions and at

COFO. A regional exchange program on governance and cross-sectoral integration was initiated in Latin

America and another one on Community Forestry experiences in the Caribbean sub-region. Both will be

implemented in 2011 (see WP 2011).

A workshop with facilitators on the “Market Analysis and Development” manual was held in Turin and a

new revised version is now being finalized. The work on the “Implementing nfp’s” publication went on

during the whole year with various types of consultations with stakeholders. The work was undertaken

with in-kind consultancy support from Germany and the new publication will be printed and distributed

during the first half of 2011.

The more technical aspects of upgrading the Facility Web Platform were undertaken by Facility and FAO

staff at almost no cost to the Facility.

Programme Delivery

The programme delivery accounts for 26% of the total expenditures in 2010 (23% in 2009) and is in line

with the planned budget (25%). The travel costs are continuing to increase compared to previous years,

as foreseen, following the increased cost for intercontinental flights.

Funding available for 2011 – mid 2012

Actual committed funding of the Facility for the January 2011 – June 2012 period amounts to almost 6 million

US$ as shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Facility funding situation at the end of 2010 (000 US$)

Sources of Funding 2002 - 2010

Cash In Kind 2011

Through Mid

2012

Austria

Czech republic

European Commission

FAO

Finland

France

Germany

Ireland

Japan

Netherlands

Norway

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

USA

World Bank, DGF (GFP)

300

243

8,681

3,290

1,151

543

310

801

1,157

7,027

412

5,106

1,286

2,045

4,600

330

550

220

1,500

400

550

750

800

200

1,030

640

375

Total Contributions 32,352 5,798 513

Total Expenditures 30,384 6,300 2,700

Remaining Funds 1,968 (502) (2,187)


34

Note: Figures in bold are actual/committed figures. All other figures are indications and estimates.

The total donor contributions from the start in 2002 through the end of 2010 are 32 million US$ (See Table 5).

In addition, in-kind support has been provided during the same period by FAO (Professional Staff time), France

(one APO), Japan (one APO) and Germany (consultancies). During 2010, the contribution from the FAO Forest

Department has been estimated at 0,7 million US$ which is at same level as in 2009. FAO has, during 2010,

clearly demonstrated its continued commitment to in-kind support, at the same level, for 2011-12.

The total spending for the same period is 30 million US$ and thus 2 million US$ remain for the period 2011 until

mid 2012. Formal commitments from the EC, Sweden, the WB and Germany add another 3,9 million US$ to the

available financing for the period through mid 2012. In Table 9, possible funding from last year’s contributors

(Finland, UK and the USA) has been indicated.

It is considered that new agreements with the EC and the UK, supporting implementation for the period 2011 –

2012 and beyond (based on a new Programme Document), may be a possibility. It is also expected that the

Facility will receive some contribution from the support to forestry in the Norway and the Netherlands

partnerships with FAO.

The estimated expenditures for the coming 1.5 years are 9 million US$ (see Table 5). The estimate is based on

experience gained on the implementation capacity in the countries and on a gradual phase out of country

support as no new 2nd partnership agreements are planned in 2011. A new Programme Document for a third

phase of the Facility will be developed in 2011 and presented to the donors. If accepted, it is hoped that new

donor agreements will be entered into and the funding situation may thus already look different for 2012. Given

the actual funding and estimated expenditures, it is concluded that new formal commitments, totalling 2,2

million US$, are needed to run the Facility as planned until mid-2012, whereof 0,5 million US$ already in 2011.


35

ANNEX I

Facility Steering Committee Members

As of February 2011

ORIGIN NAME POSITION CONTACT

Africa

Godwin Kowero

Executive Secretary

African Forest Forum

c/o World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)

Nairobi, Kenya

[email protected]

tel. +254 20 722 4203

Asia

Hooi Chiew

Thang

(Chairperson)

International Forestry Consultant

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

[email protected]

tel. +60 3 77822115

Latin America Ronnie de

Camino Velozo

Sub-Director General

CATIE

Turrialba, Costa Rica

[email protected]

tel. +506 25582318

fax. +506 25582057

Finland Markku Aho

Counsellor

Internat. Environment Policy

Department for Development Policy

Ministry for Foreign Affairs

Helsinki, Finland

[email protected]

Tel. +358 9 16055781

Mob. +358405211912

Germany Evy von Pfeil

International Forest Policy

Africa Programme

Deutsche Gesellschaft fur

Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

Accra, Ghana

[email protected]

Mob. +233 24 4343486

International

Forest Research

Doris Capistrano

Visiting Professor

Forest and Nature Conservation Policy

Wageningen University

Netherlands

Senior Fellow, SEARCA

Manila, Philippines

[email protected]

Tel. +632 643 3103

Foundations Jeffrey Campbell

Director of Grant making

Christensen Fund

San Francisco, USA

[email protected]

tel. +1 650 323 8704

cell. +1 650 213 6889

Private Sector Michael Peter

Executive Director

Forestry South Africa

Johannesburg, South Africa

[email protected]

a

tel. +27 11 8033403

fax. + 27 11 8036708

cell. +27 828080425

Non

Governmental

Organization

Emelia Arthur Deputy Minister, Western Region

Government of Ghana

[email protected]

[email protected]

The World Bank Peter Dewees

PROFOR Manager

Agriculture & Rural Development

The World Bank

Washington DC, USA

[email protected]

tel. +1 202 4584021

fax. +1 202-614-1402

FAO Michael Martin

Director

Forest Economics & Policy Division

FAO, Rome, Italy

[email protected]

tel. +39 06 57053302

fax. +39 06 57055137


36


37

ANNEX II

Facility Country Coaches in 2010

Africa

Country Coach

Angola Michael Chihambakwe

Benin Atse Yapi

Burkina Faso Marguerite France-Lanord

Burundi Johan Lejeune

Cape Verde Fernando Salinas

Congo, Democratic Republic Jean-Claude Nguinguiri

Congo, Republic Jean-Claude Nguinguiri

Côte d’Ivoire Atse Yapi

Equatorial Guinea Jhony Zapata

Ethiopia Marguerite France-Lanord

Gambia Sophie Grouwels

Ghana Atse Yapi

Guinea Atse Yapi

Guinea-Bissau Fernando Salinas

Kenya Fred Kafeero

Lesotho Michael Chihambakwe

Liberia Jhony Zapata

Malawi Michael Chihambakwe

Mali François Wencélius

Morocco François Wencélius

Mozambique Michael Chihambakwe

Namibia Michael Chihambakwe

Niger François Wencélius

Nigeria Atse Yapi

Rwanda Johan Lejeune

Senegal Atse Yapi

Sierra Leone Fernando Salinas

South Africa Michael Chihambakwe

Sudan Marguerite France-Lanord

Tanzania Michael Chihambakwe

Togo Fernando Salinas

Tunisia François Wencélius

Uganda Fred Kafeero

Zambia Fred Kafeero

Zimbabwe René Czudek


38

Asia Pacific

Country Coach

Bhutan Xiaojie Fan

Cambodia Xiaojie Fan

China Xiaojie Fan

Indonesia Marguerite France-Lanord

Laos Xiaojie Fan

Mongolia Dominique Reeb

Nepal Xiaojie Fan

Pakistan Xiaojie Fan

Palau Aru Mathias

Philippines Patrick Durst

Thailand Xiaojie Fan

Vanuatu Aru Mathias

Viet Nam Xiaojie Fan

Latin America and Caribbean

Country Coach

Belize Claus Eckelmann

Bolivia Wulf Killmann

Brazil Manuel Paveri

Chile Jorge Meza

Colombia Ignacio Bustos

Cuba Claus Eckelmann

Dominican Republic Claus Eckelmann

Ecuador Ignacio Bustos

El Salvador Jhony Zapata

Guatemala Jhony Zapata

Guyana Claus Eckelmann

Honduras Jhony Zapata

Jamaica Claus Eckelmann

Nicaragua Jhony Zapata

Paraguay Jorge Meza

Peru Ignacio Bustos

Suriname Claus Eckelmann

Near East

Country Coach

Yemen Qiang Ma

Western and Central Asia

Country Coach

Armenia Norbert Winkler

Georgia Norbert Winkler

Kyrgyzstan Arvydas Lebedys

Uzbekistan Arvydas Lebedys


39

Regional Partnerships

ACICAFOC Asociación Coordinadora Indígena

Campesina de Agroforestería Comunitaria

Centroamericana

Jhony Zapata

CANARI

Caribbean Natural Resources Institute Claus Eckelmann CCAD Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y

Desarrollo Jhony Zapata SPC

Secretariat of the Pacific Community Aru Mathias

Total of 20 Coaches


40

ANNEX III

Facility Partner Countries and their 2010 Human Development index ranking

Very high Human Development Norway Australia New Zealand United States of America Ireland Liechtenstein Netherlands Canada Sweden Germany Japan Korea (Republic of) Switzerland France Israel Finland Iceland Belgium Denmark Spain Hong Kong, China (SAR) Greece Italy Luxembourg Austria United Kingdom Singapore Czech Republic Slovenia Andorra Slovakia United Arab Emirates Malta Estonia Cyprus Hungary Brunei Darussalam Qatar Bahrain Portugal Poland Barbados High Human Development Bahamas Lithuania

Chile

Argentina Kuwait Latvia Montenegro Romania Croatia Uruguay Libya Panama Saudi Arabia Mexico Malaysia Bulgaria Trinidad and Tobago Serbia

Belarus Costa Rica

Peru

Albania Russian Federation Kazakhstan Azerbaijan Bosnia and Herzegovina Ukraine Iran Macedonia (FYRM) Mauritius

Brazil Georgia

Venezuela

Armenia Ecuador Belize Colombia Jamaica Tunisia

Jordan Turkey Algeria Tonga Medium Human Developm. Fiji Turkmenistan

Dominican Republic China El Salvador

Sri Lanka

Thailand

Gabon

Suriname Bolivia Paraguay Philippines

Botswana Moldova

Mongolia

Egypt

Uzbekistan

Micronesia

Guyana Namibia Honduras

Maldives

Indonesia Kyrgyzstan South Africa

Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan

Viet Nam Morocco Nicaragua Guatemala Equatorial Guinea Cape Verde

India Timor-Leste Swaziland

Lao People's Democratic Republic

Solomon Islands

Cambodia Pakistan Congo

São Tomé and Príncipe Low Human Development

Kenya

Bangladesh

Ghana

Cameroon Myanmar

Yemen Benin

Madagascar Mauritania Papua New Guinea

Nepal Togo

Comoros

Lesotho Nigeria Uganda Senegal

Haiti

Angola

Djibouti

Tanzania Côte d'Ivoire Zambia Gambia Rwanda Malawi Sudan

Afghanistan

Guinea Ethiopia Sierra Leone

Central African Republic

Mali Burkina Faso Liberia

Chad

Guinea-Bissau Mozambique Burundi Niger Congo (Democratic Republic of the) Zimbabwe

--------------------------------

Bhutan HDI not quoted Cuba HDI not quoted Palau HDI not quoted Vanuatu HDI not quoted

Facility Partner Countries (70)

Bold are the countries covered through

Sub-regional Partnerships


41

ANNEX IV

Reporting against the Logical framework (2002-2010)

Facility Intervention Logic

Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Reporting against Logical Framework Sources of Verification

Overall objectives

Supporting forest policy planning and implementation processes that: − Effectively address local needs and national priorities

− Reflect internationally agreed principles for national forest programmes (nfp’s)

− Involve all stakeholders in sustainable forest management

− Forest sector issues in general and nfp’s in particular are integrated into broader national policies (e.g., PRSPs)

− International

agreements (e.g., CBD, UNFCCC, UNCCD) are reflected in national forest policies and planning

− Mechanisms for

stakeholder participation in nfp’s are operational

− Partner countries have made an effort to integrate nfp’s into broader national strategies (poverty reduction, combating desertification, land use planning), and inter-sector coordination in nfp implementation. There are also some examples of integrating international commitments and Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) / Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) proposals for action in national policy development

− International agreed principles (country ownership, participation and

integration into other sectors) for nfp and international agreements were explained in the national forest policy context during training and information sessions (under “Nfp’s for all”)

− In all the partner countries, National Multi-stakeholder Steering

Committees (NMSC) were set-up or strengthened to guide the nfp process. Activities are implemented by a wide range of stakeholders

− in 2010, FORIS calculated that the stakeholder composition in the

NMSC in the Facility Partner countries is as follows: o Forestry Department (at national or federal level): 100% o Decentralised Forestry Department at provincial, district of state

level: 40% o Other ministries (Ministry of Environment, Rural Development,

Energy, Finance, Agriculture, etc.): 51% o Forest Research institution or institution for forest extension:

61% o Forest Education and Academia (university, forestry school,

training institute, etc.): 67% o Professional Associations: 26% o Non-governmental Organisations / Community based

Organisations: 81% o Indigenous Peoples Groups: 14% o Private sector or private sector associations: 47% o International partners, donors (informed observers): 43%

− Nfp documents − National policy and strategy

documents − National action plans (e.g.,

CBD and UNFCCC) − National budgets − Minutes of meetings of the

NMSC


42




Programme Purpose

Strengthening the nfp process in up to 60 developing countries (DC) in conformity with local needs, stakeholders’ interests, national priorities, internationally defined criteria, and best possible information

− Number of improved nfp processes

− Nature of the improvements initiated by Facility activities

− 70 Facility partner countries and 4 Partner Organisations (including the 14 partner countries and 1 partner organisation which received a 2nd partnerships)

− in 2010, there were 5 partners which organised a workshop to launch their 2nd Agreement (Pakistan could not do the launch its 2nd Agreement due to the security situation in the country)

− A number of so called dormant countries (Burundi, Rwanda, Nepal) organised a workshop to give renewed stimulus to their nfp process; In all countries with a 2nd Agreement, a participatory process had already taken place in order to draft the Concept Note

− Nfp processes strengthened in all the Partner Countries; in some of these countries the nfp process has been initiated almost from scratch; the Facility has supported the 3 main nfp-principles, spread over the 4 different phases

− Development of an open and competitive process, guided by the National Multi-stakeholder Steering Committee (NMSC), responsive to local needs and reflecting national priorities

− Development of OIMES, the monitoring system of the nfp process (“nfp-matrix” followed by the creation of the Appendix, which is part of the Facility Country Agreement); the system can also be used as a basis for Facility impact monitoring and evaluation

− National reports to UNFF

− FAO periodic reports and assessments

− Facility OIMES (RBM) system

− Appendixes of the Facility Country Agreements

Results

1. National capacity to implement effective nfp’s is improved, through active civil society participation in up to 60 DC

− Number of DCs where the Facility was active

− Number of civil

society organizations supported with Facility grants

− Average volume of

grants − Types and quality

of Facility funded activities

− 70 Partner Countries, and 4 Partner Organisations; 14 partner countries and 1 Partner Organisation entered into a 2nd Agreement

− Approximately 500 non-state stakeholders (NGOs, CBOs, National

Institutions, Associations and decentralized forestry departments) were recipients of small grants

− Grants range from 5,000 US$ to (rather exceptional) 98,000 US$

(average is 25,000 US$) − Capacity building, information gathering and sharing, special studies to

support forest policies (for example, the impact of forestry on rural livelihoods and GDP), development and adoption of new forest legislation and dissemination of forest related laws and regulations, development of new fiscal policies, new concession systems, new mechanisms to fund forestry (payment for environmental services; paying for water), and enabling private investment in the forestry sector; decentralization in the forest sector, empowering local governments in forest management and institutional reorganization

− Facility OIMES Monitoring system

− Proceedings and reports

from Facility funded activities (final reports freely available on the web)

− Facility website − Facility database


43




2. The availability, access to and use of information, and knowledge towards effective implementation of nfp processes are improved

− Number, types and quality of Facility information services

− Number of hits on

Facility Websites − Number and type of

regional lessons learned events

− Facility website; Facility publications (Digest, Understanding nfp’s); Facility brochures; launching workshop (“Nfp’s for All”); support to the establishment of databases on the different forestry stakeholders in the country by the Forestry Departments; making available to a wide public the key forest policy documents; the simplification of forest laws and regulations; the translation (and simplification) of forest laws into local languages, and the dissemination of them through the web site, through mailings, and most effectively, through national and local workshops and gatherings

− In 2010, about 6 350 “visits” to the Facility website − Regional lessons learned workshops have been organised and

opportunities are taking advantage of to meet and share experiences on nfps; in 2010 COFO, organised in October, was such an opportunity. In 2009, there was ample opportunity as well, such at the World Forestry Congress in Argentina, the County Lead Initiative (CLI) in China and the FAO Regional Forestry Commissions (Africa, Near East, Asia and Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, and Europe); in all these international and regional meetings, a side event on nfp’s and the Facility were organised to exchange information and learn from country experience in the implementation of nfp’s

− Facility Progress Reports, web pages and reports

− Reports from Facility funded communities of practice

− Reports and minutes from side events organised at International or regional conferences

3. Country lead forest policy formulation and implementation are integrated in broader national policies and reflect international agreements

− Number and importance of forestry related policies and investment decisions included in national policies and strategies for sustainable development

− In 8 African countries (Sudan, Nigeria, Zambia, Malawi, Namibia, Kenya, Niger, and Morocco), a study was carried out in 2007 to look into the integration of Poverty Reduction Strategies in nfp’s; the final concluding workshop took place in Kenya in November 2007

− Policy & strategy formulation support at different levels and on a wide

range of topics (regional or sub-regional forest strategies; national forest statements; assistance to Forest Sector Reviews; sub-sector strategies (e.g., CBFM, afforestation/reforestation, agroforestry, protected areas, NWFP, forest utilization, forestry education and research, demonstration of the contribution of forestry to rural livelihoods)

− Support on nfp implementation and monitoring through new legal,

fiscal and institutional instruments

− Nfp documents − National policy and strategy

documents − National action plans (e.g.,

CBD and UNFCCC) − National budgets − Minutes of meetings of the

NMSC


44




1. Developing partnerships between the Facility and eligible countries

1.1 Inviting countries to apply

− Number of countries invited

− Nature and

number of initiatives/events used to publicize Facility support to countries

− Official letters of invitation were sent (through the FAO or UNDP Country Offices) to all 108 eligible countries (Medium and Low Human Development Index); 95 of these countries have replied by sending a proposal (Concept Note); 70 are now partners; of the 49 Least Developed Countries (LDC), 34 are Facility partner (or 69% of all LDCs).

− The Facility website and Flyer, international events such as the World

Forestry Congress, CLI, COFO, FAO’s Regional Commissions, UNFF, UNCCC-Bali, etc.

− In 2010, the Facility coaches have visited the Facility Partner

Countries at least once (except some countries for security reasons, and some non-responding countries).

− Facility Progress Reports

− Facility Country Support Database

− Reports from the NMSCs

− Reports from Recipient

Organizations (receiving Facility grants)

− Back to Office Reports from

Facility “coaches”

2. Supporting stakeholders in

partner countries

1.2 Evaluating applications

− Number of applications received; quality and relevance of Concept Notes and corresponding applications

− Number of

respective decisions of the Steering Committee and Facility management

− 95 countries and 7 sub-regional organizations have applied for Facility Partnerships by submitting a Concept Note

− 70 partner countries and 4 partner Regional organizations were

selected after a ranking and selection process in different prioritization sessions spread over 8 years. In detail: 2002: 8 partners admitted: Chile, China, ACICAFOC, Malawi, Mongolia, Nigeria, Thailand, Tanzania 2003 (June): 7 partners admitted: CCAD, Ghana, Indonesia, Mali, Namibia, Philippines, Senegal 2003 (December): 15 partners admitted: Colombia, Cuba, DR Congo, Ecuador, Honduras, Kenya, Lesotho, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Paraguay, Rwanda, South Africa, Tunisia, Uganda 2004: 8 partners admitted: Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Georgia, Jamaica, Pakistan, Sudan, Vanuatu 2005: 8 partners admitted: Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Nicaragua, Palau, Viet Nam, Zambia, SPC, CANARI 2007: 11 countries admitted: Sierra Leone, Angola, Ethiopia, Uzbekistan, Dominican Rep., Nepal, Guinea, El Salvador, Laos, Cambodia, Belize 2008: 4 countries were admitted: Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Yemen

− 2009: 13 new countries have been accepted as partner, based on the

Concept Note (Bhutan, Bolivia, Burundi, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Peru, Suriname, Togo, and Zimbabwe)

2010: no new partner countries were accepted

− Concept Notes received

− Proposals received

− Signed Partnership Agreements

− Signed Second Phase

Partnership Agreements

− Appendixes of the Partnership Agreements (Monitoring tool)

− Workshop reports and

proceedings

− Scored indicators in the nfp-matrix, done in a participatory way, during NMSC meeting or wkshop


45




1.3 Establishing and supporting partnerships

− Number of partnership agreements concluded with countries

− Number of

partnership agreements extended

− Number of “Nfp’s

for All” Initial Training workshops

− 70 countries have signed a partnership agreement; 4 Regional Entities are also Facility Partners;

− 2008: 2 partnerships (Honduras and Guatemala) were approved for a

second Facility Partnership Agreement; − 2009: another 7 partner countries received a second Partnership

Agreement (China, Ecuador, Nigeria, Paraguay, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia);

− 2010: another 5 partner countries and 1 partner organisation

received a 2nd Partnership Agreement (Mozambique, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Senegal, Sudan and ACICAFOC)

− “Nfp’s for All” was organized up till now in 40 countries (Kenya,

Thailand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Mauritius, Namibia, Indonesia, Sudan, Serbia, Zambia, Chile, Guatemala, Sierra Leone, Angola, Uzbekistan, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Laos, Cambodia, Belize; Malawi, Nepal, Benin, Burkina Faso, Yemen, Brazil, Ethiopia; and the admitted partners of 2009 (Bhutan, Bolivia, Burundi, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Peru, Suriname, Togo, and Zimbabwe)

− The Appendix to the Facility Agreement, which is part of it

1.4 Monitoring and evaluating implementation

− Quantitative and qualitative assessments of the achievements of the partnerships against their stated objectives.

− The concept of Outcome and Impact Monitoring and Evaluation System (OIMES) which is closely related to Result Based Management (RBM) was developed in 2007, but the modus operandi of OIMES and the first field tests were established in 2008 in Guatemala and Honduras.

− In 2010, OIMES/RBM was applied in all countries and is now made compulsory for all new LoAs signed in 2010. Key elements in OIMES/RBM are the “in-country self-evaluation” of the past Facility support, the lessons learned workshop to discuss the new direction of the nfp process in the country, and the nfp-update which has the nfp-matrix as an important element. The latter shows in a quantitative way how vibrant the nfp process is. The matrix is in fact a gap analysis and shows the areas where Facility support is needed (now and in the future) to improve the nfp process. The criteria of the matrix on which action will be undertaken (through a Letter of Agreement) will be clearly shown as an annex to the contract. When the work of the stakeholder is over, the NMSC will judge if the scores on these particular indicators have been changed.


46




2.1 Publishing calls for Facility stakeholder grant proposals

2.2 Evaluating

applications 2.3 Concluding

stakeholder grant contracts

− Number, nature and outreach of actual calls for proposals made in partner countries;

− Stakeholder

awareness of grant availability in target country (e.g. questionnaire).

− Number, quality,

and relevance of applications received;

− Transparency and fairness of the evaluation of applications.

− Proportion of contracts involving different types of stakeholders (NGOs, CBOs, representatives of forest industry and trade, forest related Academia, and stakeholders from outside the forestry sector)

− Each partner country opens annually a call of proposals (including the terms of reference, eligibility criteria, and ranking and selection criteria) which is made public through newspapers, websites, radio, posters.

− When the outreach was good, many proposals are received, of which approx 75% are in principle eligible for funding (approx 25% are from private sector, individuals, or the proposal did not reply to the ToR).

− In the well functioning partner countries more applications are received because stakeholders are better informed, have easier access to information and have more trust in the modus operandi.

− Each call for proposals in a country attracts between 4 to 30 proposals.

− Proposals are selected through an open vetting process carried out by the NMSC, chaired by the Director of Forestry. Members of the NMSC who have an own proposal submitted have to declare a conflict of interest and leave the meeting room when their proposal is evaluated and ranked.

− In many the countries, FAO or other donors are present as observer during the vetting process.

− Approximately 26% of the stakeholders contracts (Letters of

Agreement) are given to Forestry Departments for guiding the process and monitoring of activities carried out by the non-state stakeholders.

− Approx 74% of the grants support non governmental organizations such as NGOs, CBOs, National Institutions (including research and academic), Associations, and decentralized Governmental agencies

− Advertisements and press releases announcing the call for proposals

− WebPages of Government

− Draft project proposals (stored with the national focal point at the Forestry Department)

− Reports of the selection and ranking meeting (stored electronically at the Facility)

− Annually, the Facility is producing a report showing all LoAs established since 2002

− The Facility website has a section providing the names of all recipient organizations with a short description of their normative mandate, their contact details and their website (if the have).

− The Facility database (FORIS) keeps track of all contracts.

−


47




2.4 Monitoring and evaluating grant implementation

− Number of contracts satisfactorily implemented and completed;

− Number of contracts assessed under the foreseen system to monitor the impact of Facility support to countries.

− By December 2009, there were 544 small grants established (90% through Letters of Agreement; 10% by direct fund transfer through the FAO Representative), with a total amount of 12.6 Million US$

− While most of the contracts are completed in a satisfactory way (technically spoken), many have suffered a delay in the execution of the work.

− − Only in a few occasions the LoA had to be cancelled because of the

incapacity to carry out the activities as stated in the LoA. − The OIMES/RBM, established in 2008, was tested in 2009 in 19

countries. The system will be fully applied in 2010 in all the individual contracts (LoAs). As a result, all LoAs will be assessed and evaluated against the stated general objectives of the Country Partnership Agreement, as expressed in the concept note and as made visible in the (scored) NFP matrix.

− OIMES training is documented in the minutes of the Workshop

− The evaluation of the LoA

will also be done through FORIS by the facility Coach and the NFP Focal Point of the country concerned.

2.5 Providing policy backstopping and advisory services to stakeholders

− Number and duration of Facility “coaching” activities at the country level (missions) and from Headquarters;

− Nature and

importance of stakeholders’ adherence to recommendations and advice from Facility “coaches”.

− in 2010, 85% of the countries were visited by the coach at least once (some countries are not visited due to security reason, or non-responding). On average 4,5 working days are spent in a country while on mission. Coaches spent 55 % of their time on policy backstopping (from office and in the field).

− The Mid-Term Review in 2005 and the EC external evaluation in 2007 confirm that the national stakeholders and beneficiaries of the Facility greatly appreciate and value the advice and the stimulation received from the country coaches. This was confirmed by statements made by participants at the World Forestry Congress and the CLI.

− Travel reports of the coaches.

− Minutes of side-events


48




3. Web based information services

3.1 Establishing a Web based nfp information platform

− Number and extent of nfp related Web sites and pages, and linkages with sites of other nfp related information providers;

− Number and

efficiency of search tools and information cataloguing procedures;

− Number, nature,

and quality of Web tools made available for nfp communities.

− Specific Web-pages have been developed and constantly improved in order to present and inform about the Facility and its activities. Special sub-sections are dedicated to (i) Country support, (ii) Information services and (iii) News.

− Links with FAO NFP site and many other relevant NFP and forestry

policy related websites (such as: EFI, ETFRN, PROFOR) and to many stakeholders in partner countries. In 2011, special effort will be made to contact all the stakeholders which received a small grant to ask them to link their site with the site of the facility.

− Under the FAO FORIS System, a Country Support Database has been

developed and implemented to archive and sort out information and results about partner countries and partner institutions. This Country Support Database is accessible worldwide through Internet to all Facility staff.

− Two database systems are available in the Facility website: (i) FORIS

allowing to keep track of all on-going and achieved activities in the partner countries and (ii) the Sourcebook on funding sources for SFM, a joint effort between the Facility and the CPF) aiming to share existing information on available funding for SFM. http://www.fao.org/forestry/cpf/sourcebook/en/

− the Facility website (www.nfp-facility.org)

− Facility Progress Reports; − Database statistics, and

web server statistics; − Users’ lists (country

administrators).

−

3.2 Establishing the “nfp Update” database

− Structure, content, size and status of the database, availability of maintenance and updating procedures, accessibility and user-friendliness;

− Use made of the

database by nfp stakeholders in DCs and elsewhere.

− During 2003, the “nfp-update” initiative was launched; by 2005, the profiles of 104 countries were on-line. In order to improve the quality of the existing information, new and detailed guidelines were defined in 2006.

− About 40 new nfp-updates have been completed in 2007, and are further being updated by FAO; the Facility is providing inputs to this exercise.

− The Nfp matrix and the corresponding Facility Appendix are used as part of the OIMES/RBM; according the information and feedback received by countries the assessment and monitoring of the nfp process is well received and can also be used for other purposes.

− the nfp update is on-line, accessible though the FAO Forestry and facility websites

− also the NFP matrix is on-line showing the status of the nfp in a particular country.


49




3.3 Sharing knowledge resulting from other activities of the Facility

− Published outputs from communities of practice and Facility support to countries: on the Web and disseminated electronically (e-mail distribution lists), and use made of these outputs.

− More than 50 “country stories” which summarize the main outputs/outcomes from the Facility support to national stakeholders are available on the Facility web pages.

− The feature “Facility Multimedia” (implemented in 2007), offers the possibility to view on-line forestry related videos, produced with the support of the Facility.

− The Facility website has introduced a feature to search information by topic (the key-words linked to these topics were revised in 2010), making it easier for the web viewer to search and retrieve information.

− Material can be viewed and/or downloaded from the Facility website


50




Activities Information Services dynamic methods of information and knowledge sharing

4.1 Developing communities of practice (CoP) (= may emerge from the regional lessons learnt seminars)

− Number of CoP around specific nfp related themes and issues; number of members in these and geographic coverage;

− Number of CoP related workshops supported by the Facility.

− “Enhancing stakeholder participation in nfp” was the first CoP launched and supported by the Facility. Later, a similar package was developed for “Conflict Resolution in nfps”. Since 2002, many workshops were organized on these issues of participation; in 2009: Lesotho; Cambodia, Nigeria, Vietnam);

− in 2010 a Training for Trainers (TOT) has been organised in Asia through RECOFTC, which led to national training in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Philippines and Thailand.

− In order to create ownership and resident capacities in the Africa region, a training of trainers’ course was organised in November 2009, involving 6 African countries (Uganda, Gambia, South Africa, Lesotho, Zimbabwe and Malawi); for 2011, another TOT will be organised, through ANAFE based in Kenya).

− The Guidelines on “How to make an nfp process work through

participation” and “Conflict Resolution in nfps” were drafted and printed (in 2010); The former publication has been translated into French and Spanish.

− Considering the importance of cross-sectoral issues, the Facility

provided in 2009 financial assistance to two regional workshops on “Cross-sectoral policy planning in forestry” (one in Africa and the other in Central America).

− Since 2005, CoP was implemented with the understanding of

knowledge sharing and capacity building.

− To disseminate the nfp principles, “Introductory Training Module” (ITM) was developed under the framework of “Nfps for All” (a joint initiative of FAO, the Facility and partners from the Netherlands, Germany and Finland). Two testing workshops took place in 2005. The ITM was used in all countries during the launching workshops of the new partnerships and during the launching of 2nd Facility Agreements.

To share experience and develop compensatory mechanisms linking forest and water an initiative was started 2008 in Central America and The Caribbean; 20 concrete cases in 9 countries have been identified and studied. The results were discussed and conclusions drawn for continued implementation at a regional workshop. A presentation of the findings was made at the WFC in October 2009.

− Facility Progress Reports; − Membership lists, activity

reports of CoP; − Workshop proceedings; − Publication and distribution

lists; − Feed-back from readers; − Reports and publications

from Facility partner agencies.

− All modules are available, though the website, or are request


51




Activities Information Services dynamic methods of information and knowledge sharing

4.2 National and regional lessons learnt/exchange of experiences seminars/workshops

− Number, themes, location, participation and targeted public of the workshops supported by Facility.

− With the “nfps for All”, initiatives have been taken to develop training modules for the following themes:

o Stakeholder participation; o Financing Mechanisms, o Conflict Management and o Forests and Climate. − These themes are of high interest and demanded by foresters and

the forestry sector, worldwide. − This training material was available for use during workshops in

order to build capacities, share knowledge as well as promote and establish new networks.

− National workshops were held on Financing Mechanisms for SFM: in 2008 in Namibia and Guatemala; in 2009 in Philippines, Paraguay and Ecuador and in 2010 in ccc, ggg

− All material is available at

request (hard copies), or can be downloaded from the web

− Workshop reports

dynamic methods of information and knowledge sharing

4.3 Disseminating information beyond the reach of electronic media.

− Published outputs from CoP and Facility support to countries disseminated under hard copy documents and CD-ROMs (number, size, languages, and frequency).

− In support of the “Nfps for All”, the Facility published and disseminated the Facility/FAO document “Understanding nfps” (available in English, French and Spanish).

− Special edition on nfps was published (in collaboration of PROFOR)

in the ETFRN Newsletter (2004).

− Nfp Digest on “Forests and poverty” was produced (at beginning to 2007) in paper version with a CD-Rom containing further background papers.

− Promotional material, several CDs and a new Facility leaflet were

produced in the six languages (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese and Russian); annually a Facility Calendar is printed and widely distributed to all Partner Countries by mail and FAO Pouch.

−

− Hard copies are available of

all material

Documents

2010 Progress Report FINAL2010 Progress Report 3 2010 – Reflections by the Facility team Overall, 2010 has been a year of both intensive operations and intensive thinking on the